What is the difference between something being completely legal and being completely decriminalized? [on...
What are the specific differences between something being legal and decriminalized, especially if it is labeled as completely legal/decriminalized? What examples of this exist?
law legislation
asked 2 days ago
J.ZelezJ.Zelez
35037
New contributor
J.Zelez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by JonathanReez, Orangesandlemons, Glorfindel, Drunk Cynic, Jimmy M. yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center." – JonathanReez, Orangesandlemons, Glorfindel, Drunk Cynic, Jimmy M.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
What are the specific differences between something being legal and decriminalized, especially if it is labeled as completely legal/decriminalized? What examples of this exist?
law legislation
asked 2 days ago
J.ZelezJ.Zelez
35037
New contributor
J.Zelez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by JonathanReez, Orangesandlemons, Glorfindel, Drunk Cynic, Jimmy M. yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center." – JonathanReez, Orangesandlemons, Glorfindel, Drunk Cynic, Jimmy M.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
7
Can you clarify any specific country or jurisdiction?
– JJJ
2 days ago
2
I've noticed a lot questions about law being asked on Politics when there's a Law SE.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
2
@Zebrafish When you talk about changing law, it becomes politics.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
The votes to close for off-topic seem surprising to me. I could understand a vote to close for unclear since no jurisdiction is mentioned, but a question about changing laws seems perfectly within the realm of politics to me.
– reirab
yesterday
add a comment |
What are the specific differences between something being legal and decriminalized, especially if it is labeled as completely legal/decriminalized? What examples of this exist?
law legislation
asked 2 days ago
J.ZelezJ.Zelez
35037
New contributor
J.Zelez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
What are the specific differences between something being legal and decriminalized, especially if it is labeled as completely legal/decriminalized? What examples of this exist?
law legislation
law legislation
asked 2 days ago
J.ZelezJ.Zelez
35037
New contributor
J.Zelez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
J.ZelezJ.Zelez
35037
New contributor
J.Zelez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
J.ZelezJ.Zelez
35037
New contributor
J.Zelez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
J.ZelezJ.Zelez
35037
asked 2 days ago
J.ZelezJ.Zelez
35037
35037
New contributor
J.Zelez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
J.Zelez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
J.Zelez is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by JonathanReez, Orangesandlemons, Glorfindel, Drunk Cynic, Jimmy M. yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center." – JonathanReez, Orangesandlemons, Glorfindel, Drunk Cynic, Jimmy M.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by JonathanReez, Orangesandlemons, Glorfindel, Drunk Cynic, Jimmy M. yesterday
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question does not appear to be about governments, policies and political processes within the scope defined in the help center." – JonathanReez, Orangesandlemons, Glorfindel, Drunk Cynic, Jimmy M.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
7
Can you clarify any specific country or jurisdiction?
– JJJ
2 days ago
2
I've noticed a lot questions about law being asked on Politics when there's a Law SE.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
2
@Zebrafish When you talk about changing law, it becomes politics.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
The votes to close for off-topic seem surprising to me. I could understand a vote to close for unclear since no jurisdiction is mentioned, but a question about changing laws seems perfectly within the realm of politics to me.
– reirab
yesterday
add a comment |
7
Can you clarify any specific country or jurisdiction?
– JJJ
2 days ago
2
I've noticed a lot questions about law being asked on Politics when there's a Law SE.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
2
@Zebrafish When you talk about changing law, it becomes politics.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
The votes to close for off-topic seem surprising to me. I could understand a vote to close for unclear since no jurisdiction is mentioned, but a question about changing laws seems perfectly within the realm of politics to me.
– reirab
yesterday
7
7
Can you clarify any specific country or jurisdiction?
– JJJ
2 days ago
Can you clarify any specific country or jurisdiction?
– JJJ
2 days ago
2
2
I've noticed a lot questions about law being asked on Politics when there's a Law SE.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
I've noticed a lot questions about law being asked on Politics when there's a Law SE.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
2
2
@Zebrafish When you talk about changing law, it becomes politics.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
@Zebrafish When you talk about changing law, it becomes politics.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
The votes to close for off-topic seem surprising to me. I could understand a vote to close for unclear since no jurisdiction is mentioned, but a question about changing laws seems perfectly within the realm of politics to me.
– reirab
yesterday
The votes to close for off-topic seem surprising to me. I could understand a vote to close for unclear since no jurisdiction is mentioned, but a question about changing laws seems perfectly within the realm of politics to me.
– reirab
yesterday
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
Decriminalization means that some action (e.g., drug consumption) is no longer considered a criminal action, which means that you're no longer sent to jail or get a criminal record. However, you may still face fines, confiscation of relevant goods and other consequences.
Legalization means that there are no legal repercussions for some action (e.g., drug consumption) whatsoever.
Sources:
Decriminalization versus Legalization of Marijuana (ThoughCo)
The difference between decriminalisation and legalisation of sex work (New Statesman)
The difference between legalisation and decriminalisation (The Economist, behind paywall)
Decriminalization or Legalization? The Abortion Debate in Italy (Women & Criminal Justice)
The Polygamy Question (Janet Bennion, Lisa Fishbayn Joffe)
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered 2 days ago
Frank from FrankfurtFrank from Frankfurt
1,246212
4
+1 as this is the only answer (so far) which gets the point: the difference is the difference between not being a criminal offence and not being an offence at all (not even a civil offence).
– Rosie F
2 days ago
7
So if something got downgraded from a criminal offense to a civil infraction or something like that, that would be a decriminalization? (Sorry if I got my terminology wrong, I don't have any legal training, obviously).
– EJoshuaS
2 days ago
2
@EJoshuaS: Yes, that's broadly correct. A "civil infraction" is roughly synonymous with "something that you could get a ticket for, but normally face no risk of jail time."
– Kevin
yesterday
Especially with drugs fo example, in Portugal (where almost anything is decriminalized), they still confiscate it, and if you are caught repeatedly give you a mandatory consultation. If you are on welfare rehab MAY be a sanction (if they think you have lost control) stuff like that is not an option with a legal substance
– Hobbamok
yesterday
I find this confusing. As I understand the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings isn't that criminal proceedings are more serious - petty crime exists - or that you can't get jail time for, but that criminal proceedings are generally brought by a public prosecutor in the name of the people or the state, and civil proceedings are brought on behalf of a wronged individual or organisation.
– bdsl
yesterday
add a comment |
If something is illegal, it carries with it punitive measures. If it is decriminalized, it no longer carries such punitive measures. It is important to note though, that it may still be illegal. Often such laws eventually disappear through other legislation.
answered 2 days ago
ouflakouflak
1,339612
Should your first sentence be something like "When something is made illegal, it carries with it punitive measures"? Although there are examples of token illegality, where something is made into a crime without a punishment.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo How could something be illegal without having been made illegal? Laws don't come into existence spontaneously, they're made by people. It's only relevant if you're talking about a change in status (it wasn't illegal last year, now it is), but that doesn't affect whether there are punitive measures.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
@Barmar All the answers have had to deal with the awkward linguistic gap between legality and enforcement. This was the first answer, and read literally says something like "all illegal things are punished. decriminalised things are illegal, but not punished", which is an interesting paradox. I was attempting to suggest one way out.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo I think all the answers have an implied "generally", as non-punishable illegal acts are outliers, not what we generally consider the meaning of the word. Perhaps on Law it would be more important to make this distinction.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
@BenM, Another great example of the third sentence are the anti-miscegenation laws of the Southern states of the United States. Many of those laws were written into state constitutions. Even though those laws were overturned on a national level in 1967, and enforcement of those laws ceased as well as the penalties disappearing, state constitutions are not easy to change. The last of those laws were only finally removed in the late 90's. So though miscegenation was decriminalized, it was still technically 'illegal' and the laws were only removed years to decades later through other legislation.
– ouflak
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
It may be a situation where there are (almost) always a pair of offences being committed, and decriminalisation avoids the law actually assisting the party committing the more grave offence.
For example, if possession of, say, small amounts of marijuana for personal use is an offence, a person cannot go to the police (and still less testify on oath) concerning a drug dealer's behaviour, without incriminating himself. If possession is decriminalized, then he can.
Similarly if one decriminalizes prostitution (the act of selling sex for money or buying it), then it makes life harder for pimps.
In both cases the decision is a pragmatic one. The decriminalized thing remains illegal -- society does not approve of it -- but the law has decided that the best way to combat a criminal "industry" is to target the main players rather than their "customers" or the bottom rung of their orgainsation.
answered yesterday
nigel222nigel222
1213
New contributor
nigel222 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Caveat: IANAL and this is entirely dependent on jurisdiction.
In Australia, whether an offence is a crime or a misdemeanour is determined by its classification in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and subsequent amendments.
Conviction of any act classified as criminal goes on public record (literally, a criminal record) and this has far-reaching consequences including ineligibility for employment by the civil service at state and federal levels, and also for specified types of employment such as teaching and childcare.
After criminal conviction society will no longer trust you, whereas the consequence of a misdemeanour conviction ends with the fine. Punishment for crimes may involve mandatory imprisonment; this is not (so far as I can determine on a cursory reading) the case for misdemeanours, which normally offer a choice between payment of a fine and imprisonment.
A thing is completely legal if there is no conceivable legal obstruction.
Breathing is legal. Having a beach bonfire is not.
edited yesterday
Sam I am♦
5,38821855
answered 2 days ago
Peter WonePeter Wone
1273
New contributor
Peter Wone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
As much as I want to agree with it, the last paragraph is not objective discourse for the stack exchange.
– Mindwin
yesterday
What's not objective about it? Is a burden imposed on others without consultation? Yes. Is it punished? No. Is this a departure from the legal convention? Yes. Was that the point? Yes. Are any of these questions subjective? No. What exactly was not objective about it? Also I challenge you to find another straightforward example of unpunished quantifiable damages.
– Peter Wone
yesterday
Unfortunately the subject is too touchy and the damages are not quantified. I always tell the great challenge of this age is to quantify diffuse damages. We were able to do it with carbon emissions. But for example, if a company programs their lifts to save electricity (and thus people have to wait in the lobby for a lift for longer) the electricity savings are quantifiable, just look at the bill or the lift system metrics. But how much money is the company losing because employees are not being productive while they wait longer for the lift? That is a "not quantified damage".
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
What is the average value added by a new citizen to the nation as a whole? What are the costs of raising one without parental support? The rabbit hole is deeper than we'd like.
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Something that decriminalized is still technically illegal, but there is no punishment for it and law enforcement does nor pursue people for it. People previously convicted of the crime are not usually pardoned.
Note: This is in the context of the UK legal system, others may differ.
answered 2 days ago
useruser
8,89821936
7
This is not true. Police officers routinely pursue people for traffic violations, most which are not "crimes" (felony/misdemeanor); they are the lower class of "infraction", not punishable by any jail time (although aggravating factors can cause what would otherwise just be an "infraction" to become a misdemeanor or even a felony).
– Monty Harder
2 days ago
3
What Monty said. At least in the context of the U.S. legal system, there are lots of civil offenses that aren't criminal, but still have punishments. You may be fined for speeding, for example, but it isn't typically a criminal offence.
– reirab
2 days ago
Wrong jurisdiction guys, I was talking about the UK. Made that clear now.
– user
yesterday
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Decriminalization means that some action (e.g., drug consumption) is no longer considered a criminal action, which means that you're no longer sent to jail or get a criminal record. However, you may still face fines, confiscation of relevant goods and other consequences.
Legalization means that there are no legal repercussions for some action (e.g., drug consumption) whatsoever.
Sources:
Decriminalization versus Legalization of Marijuana (ThoughCo)
The difference between decriminalisation and legalisation of sex work (New Statesman)
The difference between legalisation and decriminalisation (The Economist, behind paywall)
Decriminalization or Legalization? The Abortion Debate in Italy (Women & Criminal Justice)
The Polygamy Question (Janet Bennion, Lisa Fishbayn Joffe)
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered 2 days ago
Frank from FrankfurtFrank from Frankfurt
1,246212
4
+1 as this is the only answer (so far) which gets the point: the difference is the difference between not being a criminal offence and not being an offence at all (not even a civil offence).
– Rosie F
2 days ago
7
So if something got downgraded from a criminal offense to a civil infraction or something like that, that would be a decriminalization? (Sorry if I got my terminology wrong, I don't have any legal training, obviously).
– EJoshuaS
2 days ago
2
@EJoshuaS: Yes, that's broadly correct. A "civil infraction" is roughly synonymous with "something that you could get a ticket for, but normally face no risk of jail time."
– Kevin
yesterday
Especially with drugs fo example, in Portugal (where almost anything is decriminalized), they still confiscate it, and if you are caught repeatedly give you a mandatory consultation. If you are on welfare rehab MAY be a sanction (if they think you have lost control) stuff like that is not an option with a legal substance
– Hobbamok
yesterday
I find this confusing. As I understand the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings isn't that criminal proceedings are more serious - petty crime exists - or that you can't get jail time for, but that criminal proceedings are generally brought by a public prosecutor in the name of the people or the state, and civil proceedings are brought on behalf of a wronged individual or organisation.
– bdsl
yesterday
add a comment |
Decriminalization means that some action (e.g., drug consumption) is no longer considered a criminal action, which means that you're no longer sent to jail or get a criminal record. However, you may still face fines, confiscation of relevant goods and other consequences.
Legalization means that there are no legal repercussions for some action (e.g., drug consumption) whatsoever.
Sources:
Decriminalization versus Legalization of Marijuana (ThoughCo)
The difference between decriminalisation and legalisation of sex work (New Statesman)
The difference between legalisation and decriminalisation (The Economist, behind paywall)
Decriminalization or Legalization? The Abortion Debate in Italy (Women & Criminal Justice)
The Polygamy Question (Janet Bennion, Lisa Fishbayn Joffe)
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered 2 days ago
Frank from FrankfurtFrank from Frankfurt
1,246212
4
+1 as this is the only answer (so far) which gets the point: the difference is the difference between not being a criminal offence and not being an offence at all (not even a civil offence).
– Rosie F
2 days ago
7
So if something got downgraded from a criminal offense to a civil infraction or something like that, that would be a decriminalization? (Sorry if I got my terminology wrong, I don't have any legal training, obviously).
– EJoshuaS
2 days ago
2
@EJoshuaS: Yes, that's broadly correct. A "civil infraction" is roughly synonymous with "something that you could get a ticket for, but normally face no risk of jail time."
– Kevin
yesterday
Especially with drugs fo example, in Portugal (where almost anything is decriminalized), they still confiscate it, and if you are caught repeatedly give you a mandatory consultation. If you are on welfare rehab MAY be a sanction (if they think you have lost control) stuff like that is not an option with a legal substance
– Hobbamok
yesterday
I find this confusing. As I understand the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings isn't that criminal proceedings are more serious - petty crime exists - or that you can't get jail time for, but that criminal proceedings are generally brought by a public prosecutor in the name of the people or the state, and civil proceedings are brought on behalf of a wronged individual or organisation.
– bdsl
yesterday
add a comment |
Decriminalization means that some action (e.g., drug consumption) is no longer considered a criminal action, which means that you're no longer sent to jail or get a criminal record. However, you may still face fines, confiscation of relevant goods and other consequences.
Legalization means that there are no legal repercussions for some action (e.g., drug consumption) whatsoever.
Sources:
Decriminalization versus Legalization of Marijuana (ThoughCo)
The difference between decriminalisation and legalisation of sex work (New Statesman)
The difference between legalisation and decriminalisation (The Economist, behind paywall)
Decriminalization or Legalization? The Abortion Debate in Italy (Women & Criminal Justice)
The Polygamy Question (Janet Bennion, Lisa Fishbayn Joffe)
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered 2 days ago
Frank from FrankfurtFrank from Frankfurt
1,246212
Decriminalization means that some action (e.g., drug consumption) is no longer considered a criminal action, which means that you're no longer sent to jail or get a criminal record. However, you may still face fines, confiscation of relevant goods and other consequences.
Legalization means that there are no legal repercussions for some action (e.g., drug consumption) whatsoever.
Sources:
Decriminalization versus Legalization of Marijuana (ThoughCo)
The difference between decriminalisation and legalisation of sex work (New Statesman)
The difference between legalisation and decriminalisation (The Economist, behind paywall)
Decriminalization or Legalization? The Abortion Debate in Italy (Women & Criminal Justice)
The Polygamy Question (Janet Bennion, Lisa Fishbayn Joffe)
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered 2 days ago
Frank from FrankfurtFrank from Frankfurt
1,246212
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
1
answered 2 days ago
Frank from FrankfurtFrank from Frankfurt
1,246212
answered 2 days ago
Frank from FrankfurtFrank from Frankfurt
1,246212
answered 2 days ago
Frank from FrankfurtFrank from Frankfurt
1,246212
1,246212
4
+1 as this is the only answer (so far) which gets the point: the difference is the difference between not being a criminal offence and not being an offence at all (not even a civil offence).
– Rosie F
2 days ago
7
So if something got downgraded from a criminal offense to a civil infraction or something like that, that would be a decriminalization? (Sorry if I got my terminology wrong, I don't have any legal training, obviously).
– EJoshuaS
2 days ago
2
@EJoshuaS: Yes, that's broadly correct. A "civil infraction" is roughly synonymous with "something that you could get a ticket for, but normally face no risk of jail time."
– Kevin
yesterday
Especially with drugs fo example, in Portugal (where almost anything is decriminalized), they still confiscate it, and if you are caught repeatedly give you a mandatory consultation. If you are on welfare rehab MAY be a sanction (if they think you have lost control) stuff like that is not an option with a legal substance
– Hobbamok
yesterday
I find this confusing. As I understand the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings isn't that criminal proceedings are more serious - petty crime exists - or that you can't get jail time for, but that criminal proceedings are generally brought by a public prosecutor in the name of the people or the state, and civil proceedings are brought on behalf of a wronged individual or organisation.
– bdsl
yesterday
add a comment |
4
+1 as this is the only answer (so far) which gets the point: the difference is the difference between not being a criminal offence and not being an offence at all (not even a civil offence).
– Rosie F
2 days ago
7
So if something got downgraded from a criminal offense to a civil infraction or something like that, that would be a decriminalization? (Sorry if I got my terminology wrong, I don't have any legal training, obviously).
– EJoshuaS
2 days ago
2
@EJoshuaS: Yes, that's broadly correct. A "civil infraction" is roughly synonymous with "something that you could get a ticket for, but normally face no risk of jail time."
– Kevin
yesterday
Especially with drugs fo example, in Portugal (where almost anything is decriminalized), they still confiscate it, and if you are caught repeatedly give you a mandatory consultation. If you are on welfare rehab MAY be a sanction (if they think you have lost control) stuff like that is not an option with a legal substance
– Hobbamok
yesterday
I find this confusing. As I understand the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings isn't that criminal proceedings are more serious - petty crime exists - or that you can't get jail time for, but that criminal proceedings are generally brought by a public prosecutor in the name of the people or the state, and civil proceedings are brought on behalf of a wronged individual or organisation.
– bdsl
yesterday
4
4
+1 as this is the only answer (so far) which gets the point: the difference is the difference between not being a criminal offence and not being an offence at all (not even a civil offence).
– Rosie F
2 days ago
+1 as this is the only answer (so far) which gets the point: the difference is the difference between not being a criminal offence and not being an offence at all (not even a civil offence).
– Rosie F
2 days ago
7
7
So if something got downgraded from a criminal offense to a civil infraction or something like that, that would be a decriminalization? (Sorry if I got my terminology wrong, I don't have any legal training, obviously).
– EJoshuaS
2 days ago
So if something got downgraded from a criminal offense to a civil infraction or something like that, that would be a decriminalization? (Sorry if I got my terminology wrong, I don't have any legal training, obviously).
– EJoshuaS
2 days ago
2
2
@EJoshuaS: Yes, that's broadly correct. A "civil infraction" is roughly synonymous with "something that you could get a ticket for, but normally face no risk of jail time."
– Kevin
yesterday
@EJoshuaS: Yes, that's broadly correct. A "civil infraction" is roughly synonymous with "something that you could get a ticket for, but normally face no risk of jail time."
– Kevin
yesterday
Especially with drugs fo example, in Portugal (where almost anything is decriminalized), they still confiscate it, and if you are caught repeatedly give you a mandatory consultation. If you are on welfare rehab MAY be a sanction (if they think you have lost control) stuff like that is not an option with a legal substance
– Hobbamok
yesterday
Especially with drugs fo example, in Portugal (where almost anything is decriminalized), they still confiscate it, and if you are caught repeatedly give you a mandatory consultation. If you are on welfare rehab MAY be a sanction (if they think you have lost control) stuff like that is not an option with a legal substance
– Hobbamok
yesterday
I find this confusing. As I understand the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings isn't that criminal proceedings are more serious - petty crime exists - or that you can't get jail time for, but that criminal proceedings are generally brought by a public prosecutor in the name of the people or the state, and civil proceedings are brought on behalf of a wronged individual or organisation.
– bdsl
yesterday
I find this confusing. As I understand the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings isn't that criminal proceedings are more serious - petty crime exists - or that you can't get jail time for, but that criminal proceedings are generally brought by a public prosecutor in the name of the people or the state, and civil proceedings are brought on behalf of a wronged individual or organisation.
– bdsl
yesterday
add a comment |
If something is illegal, it carries with it punitive measures. If it is decriminalized, it no longer carries such punitive measures. It is important to note though, that it may still be illegal. Often such laws eventually disappear through other legislation.
answered 2 days ago
ouflakouflak
1,339612
Should your first sentence be something like "When something is made illegal, it carries with it punitive measures"? Although there are examples of token illegality, where something is made into a crime without a punishment.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo How could something be illegal without having been made illegal? Laws don't come into existence spontaneously, they're made by people. It's only relevant if you're talking about a change in status (it wasn't illegal last year, now it is), but that doesn't affect whether there are punitive measures.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
@Barmar All the answers have had to deal with the awkward linguistic gap between legality and enforcement. This was the first answer, and read literally says something like "all illegal things are punished. decriminalised things are illegal, but not punished", which is an interesting paradox. I was attempting to suggest one way out.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo I think all the answers have an implied "generally", as non-punishable illegal acts are outliers, not what we generally consider the meaning of the word. Perhaps on Law it would be more important to make this distinction.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
@BenM, Another great example of the third sentence are the anti-miscegenation laws of the Southern states of the United States. Many of those laws were written into state constitutions. Even though those laws were overturned on a national level in 1967, and enforcement of those laws ceased as well as the penalties disappearing, state constitutions are not easy to change. The last of those laws were only finally removed in the late 90's. So though miscegenation was decriminalized, it was still technically 'illegal' and the laws were only removed years to decades later through other legislation.
– ouflak
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
If something is illegal, it carries with it punitive measures. If it is decriminalized, it no longer carries such punitive measures. It is important to note though, that it may still be illegal. Often such laws eventually disappear through other legislation.
answered 2 days ago
ouflakouflak
1,339612
Should your first sentence be something like "When something is made illegal, it carries with it punitive measures"? Although there are examples of token illegality, where something is made into a crime without a punishment.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo How could something be illegal without having been made illegal? Laws don't come into existence spontaneously, they're made by people. It's only relevant if you're talking about a change in status (it wasn't illegal last year, now it is), but that doesn't affect whether there are punitive measures.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
@Barmar All the answers have had to deal with the awkward linguistic gap between legality and enforcement. This was the first answer, and read literally says something like "all illegal things are punished. decriminalised things are illegal, but not punished", which is an interesting paradox. I was attempting to suggest one way out.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo I think all the answers have an implied "generally", as non-punishable illegal acts are outliers, not what we generally consider the meaning of the word. Perhaps on Law it would be more important to make this distinction.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
@BenM, Another great example of the third sentence are the anti-miscegenation laws of the Southern states of the United States. Many of those laws were written into state constitutions. Even though those laws were overturned on a national level in 1967, and enforcement of those laws ceased as well as the penalties disappearing, state constitutions are not easy to change. The last of those laws were only finally removed in the late 90's. So though miscegenation was decriminalized, it was still technically 'illegal' and the laws were only removed years to decades later through other legislation.
– ouflak
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
If something is illegal, it carries with it punitive measures. If it is decriminalized, it no longer carries such punitive measures. It is important to note though, that it may still be illegal. Often such laws eventually disappear through other legislation.
answered 2 days ago
ouflakouflak
1,339612
If something is illegal, it carries with it punitive measures. If it is decriminalized, it no longer carries such punitive measures. It is important to note though, that it may still be illegal. Often such laws eventually disappear through other legislation.
answered 2 days ago
ouflakouflak
1,339612
answered 2 days ago
ouflakouflak
1,339612
answered 2 days ago
ouflakouflak
1,339612
answered 2 days ago
ouflakouflak
1,339612
1,339612
Should your first sentence be something like "When something is made illegal, it carries with it punitive measures"? Although there are examples of token illegality, where something is made into a crime without a punishment.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo How could something be illegal without having been made illegal? Laws don't come into existence spontaneously, they're made by people. It's only relevant if you're talking about a change in status (it wasn't illegal last year, now it is), but that doesn't affect whether there are punitive measures.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
@Barmar All the answers have had to deal with the awkward linguistic gap between legality and enforcement. This was the first answer, and read literally says something like "all illegal things are punished. decriminalised things are illegal, but not punished", which is an interesting paradox. I was attempting to suggest one way out.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo I think all the answers have an implied "generally", as non-punishable illegal acts are outliers, not what we generally consider the meaning of the word. Perhaps on Law it would be more important to make this distinction.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
@BenM, Another great example of the third sentence are the anti-miscegenation laws of the Southern states of the United States. Many of those laws were written into state constitutions. Even though those laws were overturned on a national level in 1967, and enforcement of those laws ceased as well as the penalties disappearing, state constitutions are not easy to change. The last of those laws were only finally removed in the late 90's. So though miscegenation was decriminalized, it was still technically 'illegal' and the laws were only removed years to decades later through other legislation.
– ouflak
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
Should your first sentence be something like "When something is made illegal, it carries with it punitive measures"? Although there are examples of token illegality, where something is made into a crime without a punishment.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo How could something be illegal without having been made illegal? Laws don't come into existence spontaneously, they're made by people. It's only relevant if you're talking about a change in status (it wasn't illegal last year, now it is), but that doesn't affect whether there are punitive measures.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
@Barmar All the answers have had to deal with the awkward linguistic gap between legality and enforcement. This was the first answer, and read literally says something like "all illegal things are punished. decriminalised things are illegal, but not punished", which is an interesting paradox. I was attempting to suggest one way out.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo I think all the answers have an implied "generally", as non-punishable illegal acts are outliers, not what we generally consider the meaning of the word. Perhaps on Law it would be more important to make this distinction.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
@BenM, Another great example of the third sentence are the anti-miscegenation laws of the Southern states of the United States. Many of those laws were written into state constitutions. Even though those laws were overturned on a national level in 1967, and enforcement of those laws ceased as well as the penalties disappearing, state constitutions are not easy to change. The last of those laws were only finally removed in the late 90's. So though miscegenation was decriminalized, it was still technically 'illegal' and the laws were only removed years to decades later through other legislation.
– ouflak
yesterday
Should your first sentence be something like "When something is made illegal, it carries with it punitive measures"? Although there are examples of token illegality, where something is made into a crime without a punishment.
– origimbo
2 days ago
Should your first sentence be something like "When something is made illegal, it carries with it punitive measures"? Although there are examples of token illegality, where something is made into a crime without a punishment.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo How could something be illegal without having been made illegal? Laws don't come into existence spontaneously, they're made by people. It's only relevant if you're talking about a change in status (it wasn't illegal last year, now it is), but that doesn't affect whether there are punitive measures.
– Barmar
2 days ago
@origimbo How could something be illegal without having been made illegal? Laws don't come into existence spontaneously, they're made by people. It's only relevant if you're talking about a change in status (it wasn't illegal last year, now it is), but that doesn't affect whether there are punitive measures.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
1
@Barmar All the answers have had to deal with the awkward linguistic gap between legality and enforcement. This was the first answer, and read literally says something like "all illegal things are punished. decriminalised things are illegal, but not punished", which is an interesting paradox. I was attempting to suggest one way out.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@Barmar All the answers have had to deal with the awkward linguistic gap between legality and enforcement. This was the first answer, and read literally says something like "all illegal things are punished. decriminalised things are illegal, but not punished", which is an interesting paradox. I was attempting to suggest one way out.
– origimbo
2 days ago
@origimbo I think all the answers have an implied "generally", as non-punishable illegal acts are outliers, not what we generally consider the meaning of the word. Perhaps on Law it would be more important to make this distinction.
– Barmar
2 days ago
@origimbo I think all the answers have an implied "generally", as non-punishable illegal acts are outliers, not what we generally consider the meaning of the word. Perhaps on Law it would be more important to make this distinction.
– Barmar
2 days ago
1
1
@BenM, Another great example of the third sentence are the anti-miscegenation laws of the Southern states of the United States. Many of those laws were written into state constitutions. Even though those laws were overturned on a national level in 1967, and enforcement of those laws ceased as well as the penalties disappearing, state constitutions are not easy to change. The last of those laws were only finally removed in the late 90's. So though miscegenation was decriminalized, it was still technically 'illegal' and the laws were only removed years to decades later through other legislation.
– ouflak
yesterday
@BenM, Another great example of the third sentence are the anti-miscegenation laws of the Southern states of the United States. Many of those laws were written into state constitutions. Even though those laws were overturned on a national level in 1967, and enforcement of those laws ceased as well as the penalties disappearing, state constitutions are not easy to change. The last of those laws were only finally removed in the late 90's. So though miscegenation was decriminalized, it was still technically 'illegal' and the laws were only removed years to decades later through other legislation.
– ouflak
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
It may be a situation where there are (almost) always a pair of offences being committed, and decriminalisation avoids the law actually assisting the party committing the more grave offence.
For example, if possession of, say, small amounts of marijuana for personal use is an offence, a person cannot go to the police (and still less testify on oath) concerning a drug dealer's behaviour, without incriminating himself. If possession is decriminalized, then he can.
Similarly if one decriminalizes prostitution (the act of selling sex for money or buying it), then it makes life harder for pimps.
In both cases the decision is a pragmatic one. The decriminalized thing remains illegal -- society does not approve of it -- but the law has decided that the best way to combat a criminal "industry" is to target the main players rather than their "customers" or the bottom rung of their orgainsation.
answered yesterday
nigel222nigel222
1213
New contributor
nigel222 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
It may be a situation where there are (almost) always a pair of offences being committed, and decriminalisation avoids the law actually assisting the party committing the more grave offence.
For example, if possession of, say, small amounts of marijuana for personal use is an offence, a person cannot go to the police (and still less testify on oath) concerning a drug dealer's behaviour, without incriminating himself. If possession is decriminalized, then he can.
Similarly if one decriminalizes prostitution (the act of selling sex for money or buying it), then it makes life harder for pimps.
In both cases the decision is a pragmatic one. The decriminalized thing remains illegal -- society does not approve of it -- but the law has decided that the best way to combat a criminal "industry" is to target the main players rather than their "customers" or the bottom rung of their orgainsation.
answered yesterday
nigel222nigel222
1213
New contributor
nigel222 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
It may be a situation where there are (almost) always a pair of offences being committed, and decriminalisation avoids the law actually assisting the party committing the more grave offence.
For example, if possession of, say, small amounts of marijuana for personal use is an offence, a person cannot go to the police (and still less testify on oath) concerning a drug dealer's behaviour, without incriminating himself. If possession is decriminalized, then he can.
Similarly if one decriminalizes prostitution (the act of selling sex for money or buying it), then it makes life harder for pimps.
In both cases the decision is a pragmatic one. The decriminalized thing remains illegal -- society does not approve of it -- but the law has decided that the best way to combat a criminal "industry" is to target the main players rather than their "customers" or the bottom rung of their orgainsation.
answered yesterday
nigel222nigel222
1213
New contributor
nigel222 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It may be a situation where there are (almost) always a pair of offences being committed, and decriminalisation avoids the law actually assisting the party committing the more grave offence.
For example, if possession of, say, small amounts of marijuana for personal use is an offence, a person cannot go to the police (and still less testify on oath) concerning a drug dealer's behaviour, without incriminating himself. If possession is decriminalized, then he can.
Similarly if one decriminalizes prostitution (the act of selling sex for money or buying it), then it makes life harder for pimps.
In both cases the decision is a pragmatic one. The decriminalized thing remains illegal -- society does not approve of it -- but the law has decided that the best way to combat a criminal "industry" is to target the main players rather than their "customers" or the bottom rung of their orgainsation.
answered yesterday
nigel222nigel222
1213
New contributor
nigel222 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
nigel222nigel222
1213
New contributor
nigel222 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
nigel222nigel222
1213
answered yesterday
nigel222nigel222
1213
1213
New contributor
nigel222 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
nigel222 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
nigel222 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Caveat: IANAL and this is entirely dependent on jurisdiction.
In Australia, whether an offence is a crime or a misdemeanour is determined by its classification in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and subsequent amendments.
Conviction of any act classified as criminal goes on public record (literally, a criminal record) and this has far-reaching consequences including ineligibility for employment by the civil service at state and federal levels, and also for specified types of employment such as teaching and childcare.
After criminal conviction society will no longer trust you, whereas the consequence of a misdemeanour conviction ends with the fine. Punishment for crimes may involve mandatory imprisonment; this is not (so far as I can determine on a cursory reading) the case for misdemeanours, which normally offer a choice between payment of a fine and imprisonment.
A thing is completely legal if there is no conceivable legal obstruction.
Breathing is legal. Having a beach bonfire is not.
edited yesterday
Sam I am♦
5,38821855
answered 2 days ago
Peter WonePeter Wone
1273
New contributor
Peter Wone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
As much as I want to agree with it, the last paragraph is not objective discourse for the stack exchange.
– Mindwin
yesterday
What's not objective about it? Is a burden imposed on others without consultation? Yes. Is it punished? No. Is this a departure from the legal convention? Yes. Was that the point? Yes. Are any of these questions subjective? No. What exactly was not objective about it? Also I challenge you to find another straightforward example of unpunished quantifiable damages.
– Peter Wone
yesterday
Unfortunately the subject is too touchy and the damages are not quantified. I always tell the great challenge of this age is to quantify diffuse damages. We were able to do it with carbon emissions. But for example, if a company programs their lifts to save electricity (and thus people have to wait in the lobby for a lift for longer) the electricity savings are quantifiable, just look at the bill or the lift system metrics. But how much money is the company losing because employees are not being productive while they wait longer for the lift? That is a "not quantified damage".
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
What is the average value added by a new citizen to the nation as a whole? What are the costs of raising one without parental support? The rabbit hole is deeper than we'd like.
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Caveat: IANAL and this is entirely dependent on jurisdiction.
In Australia, whether an offence is a crime or a misdemeanour is determined by its classification in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and subsequent amendments.
Conviction of any act classified as criminal goes on public record (literally, a criminal record) and this has far-reaching consequences including ineligibility for employment by the civil service at state and federal levels, and also for specified types of employment such as teaching and childcare.
After criminal conviction society will no longer trust you, whereas the consequence of a misdemeanour conviction ends with the fine. Punishment for crimes may involve mandatory imprisonment; this is not (so far as I can determine on a cursory reading) the case for misdemeanours, which normally offer a choice between payment of a fine and imprisonment.
A thing is completely legal if there is no conceivable legal obstruction.
Breathing is legal. Having a beach bonfire is not.
edited yesterday
Sam I am♦
5,38821855
answered 2 days ago
Peter WonePeter Wone
1273
New contributor
Peter Wone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
As much as I want to agree with it, the last paragraph is not objective discourse for the stack exchange.
– Mindwin
yesterday
What's not objective about it? Is a burden imposed on others without consultation? Yes. Is it punished? No. Is this a departure from the legal convention? Yes. Was that the point? Yes. Are any of these questions subjective? No. What exactly was not objective about it? Also I challenge you to find another straightforward example of unpunished quantifiable damages.
– Peter Wone
yesterday
Unfortunately the subject is too touchy and the damages are not quantified. I always tell the great challenge of this age is to quantify diffuse damages. We were able to do it with carbon emissions. But for example, if a company programs their lifts to save electricity (and thus people have to wait in the lobby for a lift for longer) the electricity savings are quantifiable, just look at the bill or the lift system metrics. But how much money is the company losing because employees are not being productive while they wait longer for the lift? That is a "not quantified damage".
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
What is the average value added by a new citizen to the nation as a whole? What are the costs of raising one without parental support? The rabbit hole is deeper than we'd like.
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Caveat: IANAL and this is entirely dependent on jurisdiction.
In Australia, whether an offence is a crime or a misdemeanour is determined by its classification in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and subsequent amendments.
Conviction of any act classified as criminal goes on public record (literally, a criminal record) and this has far-reaching consequences including ineligibility for employment by the civil service at state and federal levels, and also for specified types of employment such as teaching and childcare.
After criminal conviction society will no longer trust you, whereas the consequence of a misdemeanour conviction ends with the fine. Punishment for crimes may involve mandatory imprisonment; this is not (so far as I can determine on a cursory reading) the case for misdemeanours, which normally offer a choice between payment of a fine and imprisonment.
A thing is completely legal if there is no conceivable legal obstruction.
Breathing is legal. Having a beach bonfire is not.
edited yesterday
Sam I am♦
5,38821855
answered 2 days ago
Peter WonePeter Wone
1273
New contributor
Peter Wone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Caveat: IANAL and this is entirely dependent on jurisdiction.
In Australia, whether an offence is a crime or a misdemeanour is determined by its classification in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and subsequent amendments.
Conviction of any act classified as criminal goes on public record (literally, a criminal record) and this has far-reaching consequences including ineligibility for employment by the civil service at state and federal levels, and also for specified types of employment such as teaching and childcare.
After criminal conviction society will no longer trust you, whereas the consequence of a misdemeanour conviction ends with the fine. Punishment for crimes may involve mandatory imprisonment; this is not (so far as I can determine on a cursory reading) the case for misdemeanours, which normally offer a choice between payment of a fine and imprisonment.
A thing is completely legal if there is no conceivable legal obstruction.
Breathing is legal. Having a beach bonfire is not.
edited yesterday
Sam I am♦
5,38821855
answered 2 days ago
Peter WonePeter Wone
1273
New contributor
Peter Wone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Sam I am♦
5,38821855
edited yesterday
Sam I am♦
5,38821855
edited yesterday
Sam I am♦
5,38821855
5,38821855
answered 2 days ago
Peter WonePeter Wone
1273
New contributor
Peter Wone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
Peter WonePeter Wone
1273
answered 2 days ago
Peter WonePeter Wone
1273
1273
New contributor
Peter Wone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Peter Wone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Peter Wone is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
As much as I want to agree with it, the last paragraph is not objective discourse for the stack exchange.
– Mindwin
yesterday
What's not objective about it? Is a burden imposed on others without consultation? Yes. Is it punished? No. Is this a departure from the legal convention? Yes. Was that the point? Yes. Are any of these questions subjective? No. What exactly was not objective about it? Also I challenge you to find another straightforward example of unpunished quantifiable damages.
– Peter Wone
yesterday
Unfortunately the subject is too touchy and the damages are not quantified. I always tell the great challenge of this age is to quantify diffuse damages. We were able to do it with carbon emissions. But for example, if a company programs their lifts to save electricity (and thus people have to wait in the lobby for a lift for longer) the electricity savings are quantifiable, just look at the bill or the lift system metrics. But how much money is the company losing because employees are not being productive while they wait longer for the lift? That is a "not quantified damage".
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
What is the average value added by a new citizen to the nation as a whole? What are the costs of raising one without parental support? The rabbit hole is deeper than we'd like.
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
2
As much as I want to agree with it, the last paragraph is not objective discourse for the stack exchange.
– Mindwin
yesterday
What's not objective about it? Is a burden imposed on others without consultation? Yes. Is it punished? No. Is this a departure from the legal convention? Yes. Was that the point? Yes. Are any of these questions subjective? No. What exactly was not objective about it? Also I challenge you to find another straightforward example of unpunished quantifiable damages.
– Peter Wone
yesterday
Unfortunately the subject is too touchy and the damages are not quantified. I always tell the great challenge of this age is to quantify diffuse damages. We were able to do it with carbon emissions. But for example, if a company programs their lifts to save electricity (and thus people have to wait in the lobby for a lift for longer) the electricity savings are quantifiable, just look at the bill or the lift system metrics. But how much money is the company losing because employees are not being productive while they wait longer for the lift? That is a "not quantified damage".
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
What is the average value added by a new citizen to the nation as a whole? What are the costs of raising one without parental support? The rabbit hole is deeper than we'd like.
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
2
2
As much as I want to agree with it, the last paragraph is not objective discourse for the stack exchange.
– Mindwin
yesterday
As much as I want to agree with it, the last paragraph is not objective discourse for the stack exchange.
– Mindwin
yesterday
What's not objective about it? Is a burden imposed on others without consultation? Yes. Is it punished? No. Is this a departure from the legal convention? Yes. Was that the point? Yes. Are any of these questions subjective? No. What exactly was not objective about it? Also I challenge you to find another straightforward example of unpunished quantifiable damages.
– Peter Wone
yesterday
What's not objective about it? Is a burden imposed on others without consultation? Yes. Is it punished? No. Is this a departure from the legal convention? Yes. Was that the point? Yes. Are any of these questions subjective? No. What exactly was not objective about it? Also I challenge you to find another straightforward example of unpunished quantifiable damages.
– Peter Wone
yesterday
Unfortunately the subject is too touchy and the damages are not quantified. I always tell the great challenge of this age is to quantify diffuse damages. We were able to do it with carbon emissions. But for example, if a company programs their lifts to save electricity (and thus people have to wait in the lobby for a lift for longer) the electricity savings are quantifiable, just look at the bill or the lift system metrics. But how much money is the company losing because employees are not being productive while they wait longer for the lift? That is a "not quantified damage".
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
Unfortunately the subject is too touchy and the damages are not quantified. I always tell the great challenge of this age is to quantify diffuse damages. We were able to do it with carbon emissions. But for example, if a company programs their lifts to save electricity (and thus people have to wait in the lobby for a lift for longer) the electricity savings are quantifiable, just look at the bill or the lift system metrics. But how much money is the company losing because employees are not being productive while they wait longer for the lift? That is a "not quantified damage".
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
What is the average value added by a new citizen to the nation as a whole? What are the costs of raising one without parental support? The rabbit hole is deeper than we'd like.
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
What is the average value added by a new citizen to the nation as a whole? What are the costs of raising one without parental support? The rabbit hole is deeper than we'd like.
– Mindwin
11 hours ago
add a comment |
Something that decriminalized is still technically illegal, but there is no punishment for it and law enforcement does nor pursue people for it. People previously convicted of the crime are not usually pardoned.
Note: This is in the context of the UK legal system, others may differ.
answered 2 days ago
useruser
8,89821936
7
This is not true. Police officers routinely pursue people for traffic violations, most which are not "crimes" (felony/misdemeanor); they are the lower class of "infraction", not punishable by any jail time (although aggravating factors can cause what would otherwise just be an "infraction" to become a misdemeanor or even a felony).
– Monty Harder
2 days ago
3
What Monty said. At least in the context of the U.S. legal system, there are lots of civil offenses that aren't criminal, but still have punishments. You may be fined for speeding, for example, but it isn't typically a criminal offence.
– reirab
2 days ago
Wrong jurisdiction guys, I was talking about the UK. Made that clear now.
– user
yesterday
add a comment |
Something that decriminalized is still technically illegal, but there is no punishment for it and law enforcement does nor pursue people for it. People previously convicted of the crime are not usually pardoned.
Note: This is in the context of the UK legal system, others may differ.
answered 2 days ago
useruser
8,89821936
7
This is not true. Police officers routinely pursue people for traffic violations, most which are not "crimes" (felony/misdemeanor); they are the lower class of "infraction", not punishable by any jail time (although aggravating factors can cause what would otherwise just be an "infraction" to become a misdemeanor or even a felony).
– Monty Harder
2 days ago
3
What Monty said. At least in the context of the U.S. legal system, there are lots of civil offenses that aren't criminal, but still have punishments. You may be fined for speeding, for example, but it isn't typically a criminal offence.
– reirab
2 days ago
Wrong jurisdiction guys, I was talking about the UK. Made that clear now.
– user
yesterday
add a comment |
Something that decriminalized is still technically illegal, but there is no punishment for it and law enforcement does nor pursue people for it. People previously convicted of the crime are not usually pardoned.
Note: This is in the context of the UK legal system, others may differ.
answered 2 days ago
useruser
8,89821936
Something that decriminalized is still technically illegal, but there is no punishment for it and law enforcement does nor pursue people for it. People previously convicted of the crime are not usually pardoned.
Note: This is in the context of the UK legal system, others may differ.
answered 2 days ago
useruser
8,89821936
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
useruser
8,89821936
answered 2 days ago
useruser
8,89821936
answered 2 days ago
useruser
8,89821936
8,89821936
7
This is not true. Police officers routinely pursue people for traffic violations, most which are not "crimes" (felony/misdemeanor); they are the lower class of "infraction", not punishable by any jail time (although aggravating factors can cause what would otherwise just be an "infraction" to become a misdemeanor or even a felony).
– Monty Harder
2 days ago
3
What Monty said. At least in the context of the U.S. legal system, there are lots of civil offenses that aren't criminal, but still have punishments. You may be fined for speeding, for example, but it isn't typically a criminal offence.
– reirab
2 days ago
Wrong jurisdiction guys, I was talking about the UK. Made that clear now.
– user
yesterday
add a comment |
7
This is not true. Police officers routinely pursue people for traffic violations, most which are not "crimes" (felony/misdemeanor); they are the lower class of "infraction", not punishable by any jail time (although aggravating factors can cause what would otherwise just be an "infraction" to become a misdemeanor or even a felony).
– Monty Harder
2 days ago
3
What Monty said. At least in the context of the U.S. legal system, there are lots of civil offenses that aren't criminal, but still have punishments. You may be fined for speeding, for example, but it isn't typically a criminal offence.
– reirab
2 days ago
Wrong jurisdiction guys, I was talking about the UK. Made that clear now.
– user
yesterday
7
7
This is not true. Police officers routinely pursue people for traffic violations, most which are not "crimes" (felony/misdemeanor); they are the lower class of "infraction", not punishable by any jail time (although aggravating factors can cause what would otherwise just be an "infraction" to become a misdemeanor or even a felony).
– Monty Harder
2 days ago
This is not true. Police officers routinely pursue people for traffic violations, most which are not "crimes" (felony/misdemeanor); they are the lower class of "infraction", not punishable by any jail time (although aggravating factors can cause what would otherwise just be an "infraction" to become a misdemeanor or even a felony).
– Monty Harder
2 days ago
3
3
What Monty said. At least in the context of the U.S. legal system, there are lots of civil offenses that aren't criminal, but still have punishments. You may be fined for speeding, for example, but it isn't typically a criminal offence.
– reirab
2 days ago
What Monty said. At least in the context of the U.S. legal system, there are lots of civil offenses that aren't criminal, but still have punishments. You may be fined for speeding, for example, but it isn't typically a criminal offence.
– reirab
2 days ago
Wrong jurisdiction guys, I was talking about the UK. Made that clear now.
– user
yesterday
Wrong jurisdiction guys, I was talking about the UK. Made that clear now.
– user
yesterday
add a comment |
7
Can you clarify any specific country or jurisdiction?
– JJJ
2 days ago
2
I've noticed a lot questions about law being asked on Politics when there's a Law SE.
– Zebrafish
yesterday
2
@Zebrafish When you talk about changing law, it becomes politics.
– Stig Hemmer
yesterday
The votes to close for off-topic seem surprising to me. I could understand a vote to close for unclear since no jurisdiction is mentioned, but a question about changing laws seems perfectly within the realm of politics to me.
– reirab
yesterday